Pakistan Case Law
2000 MLD 94

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2000 MLD 94
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No,1874/B of 1997
Date1997-05-16
Judge(s)Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday
ResultBail application dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arose out of a pre-arrest or post-arrest bail application filed by Muhammad Ramzan, an accused person in a criminal case initially registered for abduction. The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail where the investigation revealed that the alleged abductee, a married woman, had developed an illicit relationship with the petitioner and voluntarily eloped with him, leading to her being joined as a co-accused in the case. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail application. The court held that the petitioner failed to offer any reasonable explanation regarding why he would be falsely implicated by the complainant. The court determined that the conduct of the petitioner in absconding or eloping with a legally wedded woman did not entitle him to the discretionary relief of bail. Relying on its assessment of the petitioner's conduct and lack of evidence of false implication, the court refused bail.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does voluntary elopement with a married woman disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Can bail be granted where the accused fails to show any reasonable explanation for alleged false implication?
bailelopementabductionconduct of accusedfalse implicationdiscretionary relief

ORDER

' It is not denied that Mst. Kaniz Fatima is a legally wedded wife of Ghulam Rasool complainant. At the time of lodging of the F.I.R. It had been thought that she had been abducted by Ramzan petitioner and others but during the course of investigation it transpired that she had developed illicit relations with Ramzan petitioner and had voluntarily eloped with him. Kaniz Fatima has since been arraigned as an accused person in the said case.

2. The learned counsel has not been able to offer any reasonable explanation as to why the petitioner should have been falsely implicated in the present case. The conduct of the petitioner is not such which could entitle him to the concession of bail. The learned counsel placed reliance on Mst. Wazeeran etc. v. State (1987 M LD 1202) and Muhammad Saleem Ullah v. State (1993 PCr. U 1533). Dismissed;

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.